A serious concern about tanks.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Most of my posts here are snarky or negative but I think I'll take a stab at making an honest one for once.

I've read that tank armament will be customizable to the point of being able to mount AA as a secondary weapon. My question to you is why wouldn't I want to mount AA as a secondary or tertiary weapon? ATG has always been the biggest threat to armor in all of these games and the only way to really protect them was to bring along another ground based AA vehicle or have complete air supremacy. I fear that by giving AA as an option you are going to essentially be forcing players into taking the most obviously beneficial choice to deal with the most threatening targets.

In PS1 you brought a Skyguard to deal with enemy air but in PS2 it seems like you can just have your secondary gunner strap on a flak cannon and go about your business while the driver deals with all other ground threats. Other than being bipedal and having ridiculous regenerating shields this was one of the major issues people had with BFRs in that they were sort of an anti-all vehicle.

[Coreldan]

One thing to notice is that for what we know now, the main turret is quite ineffective against ground troops. While Vanguard could one shot infantry in a 10m splash, you now need a direct hit. That will mean that main turret + Flak cannon will leave you awfully vulnerable to agile infantry who are gonna stick a decimator up your ass

This is something I was thinking about myself, but considering everything I am not overly worried.

Also, I personally sort of preferred using Sparrow MAX as NC over a Skyguard when I needed AA. Then again it was easymode-AA, but I was more mobile without relying on others.

[Graywolves]

Magriders could shoot down aircraft with ease anyways.

[Skepsiis]

Its a trade off, like a suspect a lot of things will be in this game.

You choose AA for your secondary? Means you dont have the extra AV damage another encountered enemy tank might have, or no strong AI so perhaps infantry will make short work of you. An AA gunner might get really bored with nothing to shoot at too and request a different weapon, or just go get in another tank

[Mod]

Also remember what area of the continent you are in. It could be one that is particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in and therefore you would actually be hurting your survival chances by fitting AA as secondary.

And if you come up against a similar tank that happens to be fully AV fitted? Doesn't matter how many enemy aircraft are circling round you, you are likely going to be deaded from the tank quicker.

In other words, I think it will be a lot more factors involved (I hope).

[Xyntech]

This matter hits close to home for me, since I intend to be a pilot.

Right now, I think that balancing solo MBT's against 2 man MBT's is of greater concern. Everything else can be easily balanced by tweaking a few stats.

Are tank mounted AA turrets too powerful and over represented? Nerf em back a little bit. AV or AI turrets not being used enough or are under performing? Give em a little buff.

As long as the other turrets are valuable assets, I think that they will get their fare share of use.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

This matter hits close to home for me, since I intend to be a pilot.

Right now, I think that balancing solo MBT's against 2 man MBT's is of greater concern. Everything else can be easily balanced by tweaking a few stats.

Are tank mounted AA turrets too powerful and over represented? Nerf em back a little bit. AV or AI turrets not being used enough or are under performing? Give em a little buff.

As long as the other turrets are valuable assets, I think that they will get their fare share of use.

That hits close to home for me, since I intend to be a tanker. Right now, I think that balancing air so it can have anti vehicle weapons is worrisome. When I played, if you wanted to kill vehicles, you needed to bring a tank. Now they can just fit some rockets and kill ground vehicles, how is that fair? They should just be able to kill other aircraft and not intrude on the tanks role of killing ground vehicles.




Everything is multirole. No matter what you do you'll have a weakness. Infantry/MAX units can field av, aa, and ai. vehicles can field av, aa, and ai. Aircraft can field av, aa, and ai. So why is it just tanks that everyone is worried about?

[SuperMorto]

Originally Posted by Mod

Also remember what area of the continent you are in. It could be one that is particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in and therefore you would actually be hurting your survival chances by fitting AA as secondary.

And if you come up against a similar tank that happens to be fully AV fitted? Doesn't matter how many enemy aircraft are circling round you, you are likely going to be deaded from the tank quicker.

In other words, I think it will be a lot more factors involved (I hope).

thats a good point MOD, PS2 is making big changes to the areas you fight in. AA will be no good in a valley. Take a look at some of the screenies, you will have to suit your tank out depending on more than "whats best" it will all depend on what is in front of you too. More than one factor.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Everything is multirole. No matter what you do you'll have a weakness. Infantry/MAX units can field av, aa, and ai. vehicles can field av, aa, and ai. Aircraft can field av, aa, and ai. So why is it just tanks that everyone is worried about?

I guess the worry that people have is that the tank will be a jack of all trades, but it's not like it will be able to fill every role at once, at least not as effectively.

My only concern is, as Buzz brought up, if AA becomes too common on tanks. That's more of a concern of the battlefield being flooded with too much AA more than a concern about tanks.

Similarly, I wouldn't want tank busting variants of ES fighters to be too common.

Every variant of every class and vehicle should be both effective, as well as not being so overpowered that it's the only variant that anybody uses.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I guess the worry that people have is that the tank will be a jack of all trades, but it's not like it will be able to fill every role at once, at least not as effectively.

My only concern is, as Buzz brought up, if AA becomes too common on tanks. That's more of a concern of the battlefield being flooded with too much AA more than a concern about tanks.

Similarly, I wouldn't want tank busting variants of ES fighters to be too common.

Every variant of every class and vehicle should be both effective, as well as not being so overpowered that it's the only variant that anybody uses.

If tanks are taking too much AA, then I roll in with my tanks with AV and plow through them.

If air is taking too much AV, i roll in with my AA and roll over them.

etc.

But really. Literally every vehicle and infantry weapon can be used, to a degree, against vehicles. Even AA. They survive.

[LordHumungusXOX]

I think it will open up the floor for more tank battles. That's what disappeared from PS1 with the BFR shitbirds and then the Reaver stealth armor buff(an nice fat "up yours" to the tard who placed that in game).

Sure, the Reaver was always a problem, especially to grunts, but the tank battles used to be stupendous. SOE sure cleared that right up with their silliness though. No more ground fights for you sir! You must turtle in your base or fly an aircraft!

[basti]

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

Most of my posts here are snarky or negative but I think I'll take a stab at making an honest one for once.

I've read that tank armament will be customizable to the point of being able to mount AA as a secondary weapon. My question to you is why wouldn't I want to mount AA as a secondary or tertiary weapon? ATG has always been the biggest threat to armor in all of these games and the only way to really protect them was to bring along another ground based AA vehicle or have complete air supremacy. I fear that by giving AA as an option you are going to essentially be forcing players into taking the most obviously beneficial choice to deal with the most threatening targets.

In PS1 you brought a Skyguard to deal with enemy air but in PS2 it seems like you can just have your secondary gunner strap on a flak cannon and go about your business while the driver deals with all other ground threats. Other than being bipedal and having ridiculous regenerating shields this was one of the major issues people had with BFRs in that they were sort of an anti-all vehicle.

You are forgetting something: You are not alone. If you drive a tank alone with you buddy, and no friendlys around, then you are doing it wrong.
You will have other Tanks around you. Some of them AA, some AV, some AI. And you will need all three, because you dont know whats going to hit you until it actually hits you.

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If tanks are taking too much AA, then I roll in with my tanks with AV and plow through them.

If air is taking too much AV, i roll in with my AA and roll over them.

etc.

But really. Literally every vehicle and infantry weapon can be used, to a degree, against vehicles. Even AA. They survive.

it was always like this! stone paper scissor, and if there are too much scissors on the field, it will self regulate for more people will get stones.
it will stay a very dynamic process. for if there is too much aa, nobody would want to counter that in an aircraft, so sooner or later th aa guys will change to something different to be able to shoot at something. and this will encourage the enemy to draw in new aircraft and so on.

it was the same in ps1. i´m not worried about aa on tanks.
my only concern is, that i loved the driver/gunner system of ps1 and liked to only concentrate on driving or gunning. never liked the lightning because i had to do both with it.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Shogun

it was always like this! stone paper scissor, and if there are too much scissors on the field, it will self regulate for more people will get stones.
it will stay a very dynamic process. for if there is too much aa, nobody would want to counter that in an aircraft, so sooner or later th aa guys will change to something different to be able to shoot at something. and this will encourage the enemy to draw in new aircraft and so on.

it was the same in ps1. i´m not worried about aa on tanks.
my only concern is, that i loved the driver/gunner system of ps1 and liked to only concentrate on driving or gunning. never liked the lightning because i had to do both with it.

I agree. My preference was always giving all the tanks a second turret like the prowler, and the driver could control that, or a secondary gunner.

But what they are planning won't be bad. There will still be times you'll want to concentrate on driving while letting the gunner do his thing.

[EASyEightyEight]

Originally Posted by Shogun

it was always like this! stone paper scissor, and if there are too much scissors on the field, it will self regulate for more people will get stones.
it will stay a very dynamic process. for if there is too much aa, nobody would want to counter that in an aircraft, so sooner or later th aa guys will change to something different to be able to shoot at something. and this will encourage the enemy to draw in new aircraft and so on.

it was the same in ps1. i´m not worried about aa on tanks.
my only concern is, that i loved the driver/gunner system of ps1 and liked to only concentrate on driving or gunning. never liked the lightning because i had to do both with it.

This. Everything has prey, and everything is preyed upon. Too many aircraft means more tanks pack AA means less aircraft means naturally tanks wouldn't be as likely to bring AA, especially if said aircraft pilots moved into infantry/tank roles outfitted for vehicular genocide.

Then we have to consider no one should be fighting alone. One tank with primary AV and secondary AA, and a squad of foot soldiers equipped to tackle infantry supporting it. No good tank commander worth their salt would be so stupid as to head off into battle alone.